Nobody doubts the M4 is an assault weapon. Are there any material differences between an M4 and an AR15?

[progressive hunter]

The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle. The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?

I dont dispute what you say. The weaponry should be exclusive for the military and never allowed for the public use. There is no valid reason for other than an ego builder and a power play by testosterone filled Rambos.
There are so many slaughtered by these that that itself should be prove they should be banned. But no, that 250 year old 2nd amendment says we have a right.
So let the mass murders continue. When it reaches your children or close family, get back to me.

more people are killed every single year by knives, by clubs, and by bare hands than by all rifle types let alone just the AR-15 rifle.....

More people die each year falling off ladders than are killed by mass public shooters in general and by mass public shooters with rifles...

What are you talking about?

The AR-15 is not a military weapon....do you understand that?

There is only one mass public shooting where the rifle had an advantage in the shooting, and that was Las Vegas, where the range was over 200 yards......but he was also firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, from a concealed and fortified position.......with his initial shooting masked by the concert.



And if the crowed wasn't trapped in that concert arena, he wouldn't have been able to kill as many since they would have run away or found cover.....since shooting at moving targets at hundreds of yards is almost impossible for all but expertly trained shooters...



At the range of every other mass public shooting a rifle has no advantage over pistols or shotguns.......



again.....at the range of a mass public shooting the AR-15 is no better than a pump action shotgun....as are 2 handguns......you idiot...



Boulder....used an AR-15 with magazines that held more than 10 bullets.. 10 killed.....



Virginia Tech...2 pistols, one with 10 round magazine..... 32 killed.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 2 pistols?



Boulder...10 killed with an AR-15 rifle and regular magazines ( holding more than 10 bullets)



Luby's Cafe..... 2 pistols....24 killed.



Do you see that the 2 pistols killed more than the AR-15?



Do you know what the difference was between these attacks?



The cops immediately responded and shot at the attacker in boulder, causing him to stop shooting unarmed victims, and then he shot himself....



Virginia Tech and Luby's Cafe, the police didn't get there, and at Luby's Cafe, the one woman who could have shot and killed the attacker had to leave her gun in her car because of stupid gun free zone laws....



Boulder AR-15 with magazines that hold more than 10 bullets...you know, regular magazines..... 10 killed...



Kerch, Russia, Polytechnic school shooting.... 5 shot, pump action shotgun...which means it had 5 shells which is 5 less than 10........20 killed 70 wounded.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 5 shot, pump action shotgun?



The difference? The Russian police station was 100 yards away from the school...and it still took them 10 minutes to get to the school...and he managed to kill 20 people with a 5 shot, pump action shotgun....10 more than the Boulder shooter with a rifle and a regular sized magazine...





So again.......in a mass public shooting the number of bullets in the gun magazine don't mean anything......the gun doesn't make the difference....



What makes the difference?



1) if the target is a gun free zone, more people get killed.



2) if someone starts shooting at the attacker, they commit suicide, or surrender, or runaway....



That is what you don't understand and don't care to understand since you simply have a mental issue when it comes to the AR-15 rifle.

That rifle had no special advantage in a mass public shooting.

We're going to have to face one fact the AR 15 may not be used by the military but it is a weapon of war that's what makes it constitutionally protected according to U.S. v. Miller 1939

So you admit it is a weapon of war. Was that so hard?

we've been telling you that for days,,

OK. Then show the post where that was clearly stated, other than when bigreb did.

just check my comments and then show some that proved it wrong,,

or you could prove it wrong,,

You made a statement, "We've been telling you that for days" ( that an AR15 is a weapon of war) , and you want me to find your remark that says it is not? You know that's nuts, right?

not as nuts as what you asked of me,,

You said you've been telling me for days that an AR is a weapon of war, and I asked for one example. That's not nuts.

are you saying I havnt told you that at least a dozen times on this thread??

Perhaps you have, and I didn't see it. Where did you specifically say an AR15 is a weapon of war?

so you didnt see the at least a dozen times I said that,,,

kinda makes you an idiot,,

 

[BULLDOG]

The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle. The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?

I dont dispute what you say. The weaponry should be exclusive for the military and never allowed for the public use. There is no valid reason for other than an ego builder and a power play by testosterone filled Rambos.
There are so many slaughtered by these that that itself should be prove they should be banned. But no, that 250 year old 2nd amendment says we have a right.
So let the mass murders continue. When it reaches your children or close family, get back to me.

more people are killed every single year by knives, by clubs, and by bare hands than by all rifle types let alone just the AR-15 rifle.....

More people die each year falling off ladders than are killed by mass public shooters in general and by mass public shooters with rifles...

What are you talking about?

The AR-15 is not a military weapon....do you understand that?

There is only one mass public shooting where the rifle had an advantage in the shooting, and that was Las Vegas, where the range was over 200 yards......but he was also firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, from a concealed and fortified position.......with his initial shooting masked by the concert.



And if the crowed wasn't trapped in that concert arena, he wouldn't have been able to kill as many since they would have run away or found cover.....since shooting at moving targets at hundreds of yards is almost impossible for all but expertly trained shooters...



At the range of every other mass public shooting a rifle has no advantage over pistols or shotguns.......



again.....at the range of a mass public shooting the AR-15 is no better than a pump action shotgun....as are 2 handguns......you idiot...



Boulder....used an AR-15 with magazines that held more than 10 bullets.. 10 killed.....



Virginia Tech...2 pistols, one with 10 round magazine..... 32 killed.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 2 pistols?



Boulder...10 killed with an AR-15 rifle and regular magazines ( holding more than 10 bullets)



Luby's Cafe..... 2 pistols....24 killed.



Do you see that the 2 pistols killed more than the AR-15?



Do you know what the difference was between these attacks?



The cops immediately responded and shot at the attacker in boulder, causing him to stop shooting unarmed victims, and then he shot himself....



Virginia Tech and Luby's Cafe, the police didn't get there, and at Luby's Cafe, the one woman who could have shot and killed the attacker had to leave her gun in her car because of stupid gun free zone laws....



Boulder AR-15 with magazines that hold more than 10 bullets...you know, regular magazines..... 10 killed...



Kerch, Russia, Polytechnic school shooting.... 5 shot, pump action shotgun...which means it had 5 shells which is 5 less than 10........20 killed 70 wounded.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 5 shot, pump action shotgun?



The difference? The Russian police station was 100 yards away from the school...and it still took them 10 minutes to get to the school...and he managed to kill 20 people with a 5 shot, pump action shotgun....10 more than the Boulder shooter with a rifle and a regular sized magazine...





So again.......in a mass public shooting the number of bullets in the gun magazine don't mean anything......the gun doesn't make the difference....



What makes the difference?



1) if the target is a gun free zone, more people get killed.



2) if someone starts shooting at the attacker, they commit suicide, or surrender, or runaway....



That is what you don't understand and don't care to understand since you simply have a mental issue when it comes to the AR-15 rifle.

That rifle had no special advantage in a mass public shooting.

We're going to have to face one fact the AR 15 may not be used by the military but it is a weapon of war that's what makes it constitutionally protected according to U.S. v. Miller 1939

So you admit it is a weapon of war. Was that so hard?

we've been telling you that for days,,

OK. Then show the post where that was clearly stated, other than when bigreb did.

just check my comments and then show some that proved it wrong,,

or you could prove it wrong,,

You made a statement, "We've been telling you that for days" ( that an AR15 is a weapon of war) , and you want me to find your remark that says it is not? You know that's nuts, right?

not as nuts as what you asked of me,,

You said you've been telling me for days that an AR is a weapon of war, and I asked for one example. That's not nuts.

are you saying I havnt told you that at least a dozen times on this thread??

Perhaps you have, and I didn't see it. Where did you specifically say an AR15 is a weapon of war?

so you didnt see the at least a dozen times I said that,,,

kinda makes you an idiot,,

If you say so, but why don't you just give the post number where you said the AR15 is a weapon of war? That would really put me in my place, wouldn't it?

 

[9thIDdoc]

The only important definition is the legal one. The President doesn't make law. The ATF doesn't make law. The Constitution is very specific about how laws are passed and then they still can be overturned by the supreme court if they are not Constitutional.

.

Still the only reason I would be concerned about the ATF's definition,
Is that I am fairly certain they will be consulted by lawmakers should the question arise,
And they will be responsible for enforcing whatever law is created should the definition be required.

That's not saying it should be one way or the other,
just the ability to understand what will probably happen.

I am also not prepared to pretend that the Federal Government won't try, and hasn't already been successful ...
In regards to infringing upon our Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

That's because the term "universal background check" is incredibly broad and vague. Most likely support plummets when you drill down on what that means in terms of policy. Much like abortion, universal healthcare, anti-racism, etc...

What is so complicated? You sell a gun, you do a background check, just like dealers do now. Of course, you would have to go to a dealer to do it, and it might cost 3 or 4 dollars. Do you prefer felons buying guns without even having to tell the seller their name, or even caring if the purchaser can legally have a gun?

what makes you think thats going to stop a felon from getting a gun??

It won't stop all of them any more than wearing a seat belt stops all car deaths. You can't get 100% success from any program.

The problem is crime; not guns and always has been. You want to stop crime? Everybody wants to stop crime (except criminals and the hopelessly insane) more gun laws are not the answer because:
You can't disinvent technology. Guns, and the knowledge to make them exist, are plentiful and here to stay. As far as crime is concerned that is actually a good thing because it can help even the odds between vulnerable potential victims and attackers. People never had much problem murdering each other before guns were invented and if every one of them disappeared it is doubtful that it would have much effect on murder rates. So you're stabbed to death or blown up instead of shot; is that somehow an improvement?
We had an "assault weapon ban" for ten years that had absolutely no effect except to inflate gun prices and increase sales. That ban was implemented as a trial. It received support from some gun owners because it was to settle the question of whether more restrictive gun laws would improve the situation or not. It didn't and so the question was answered. Unfortunately that hasn't stopped some of the sheep from continuing to bleet about the already settled issue. There are already laws intended stop everything the gun grabbers claim to want to stop and they can present no reasonable rationale to believe that new repressive laws will work any better. I have heard that the definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. You don't curb crime by creating new criminals which is exactly the risk being run. Maybe it's past time to address the actual issues instead of continuing our wheels in the same rut and creating damage instead of progress.

Yes, crime is the problem. Crime caused by criminals with guns is a really big part of that. 90% of Americans, including 75% of NRA members say your oppressive law claim is bullshit. Why are you so fanatic about keeping an easy source of guns available to felons?

Crime caused by criminals with guns is a really big part of that.
True but it is also true that the crimes they are committing are already illegal (against current law) and nobody has yet propose a law that criminals cannot or will not break just as easily as the ones currently in place. No improvement.

90% of Americans, including 75% of NRA members say your oppressive law claim is bullshit.
No, I say that your statement is bullshit. Care to provide a link or other supporting evidence?

Why are you so fanatic about keeping an easy source of guns available to felons?
If they are so easy to get and oh so deadly why are they rarely used for criminal purposes?
From this side of the question it appears that you and your associates are the criminal friendly crowd. Why else work so hard to disarm potential victims if not to make things easier and safer for the criminals?

1. Crimes are already against the law. That's why they are called crimes. The use of a gun in those crimes puts them in a separate category. I'm still not clear on why you don't want to make it harder for known criminals to get guns.

2. You are correct. 68% of NRA members, not 75% as stated and 78% of gun owners not members of the NRA support requiring background checks for all firearm purchases.

Poll: Most NRA members support comprehensive background checks

Most National Rifle Association (NRA) members support comprehensive background checks for those purchasing a firearm, according to a new poll.

thehill.com

3. Universal background checks are for all guns. Buying a gun from an individual is extremely easy. You give them the money, you get the gun. No background check. The seller doesn't even have to know your name. If you think guns are rarely used for criminal purposes, you're nuts.

1. Crimes are already against the law. That's why they are called crimes. The use of a gun in those crimes puts them in a separate category. I'm still not clear on why you don't want to make it harder for known criminals to get guns.
I'm all for making it harder for criminals to get guns. Come up with a Constitutional new law for doing law for doing that and I'll support it. But what I keep saying and you keep ignoring is that I don't believe that that is realistically possible. And history supports that belief. Ever since 1968 we have been burdened with a host of restrictions on guns and not a single one has been shown to make it harder for criminals to get guns. Not one. And if some genius ever actually comes up with one, criminals can simply use other weapons and murder rates remain the same. I'm still unclear as to why you seem so intent on making innocent victims more vulnerable.

2. You are correct. 68% of NRA members, not 75% as stated and 78% of gun owners not members of the NRA support requiring background checks for all firearm purchases.

Poll: Most NRA members support comprehensive background checks

Most National Rifle Association (NRA) members support comprehensive background checks for those purchasing a firearm, according to a new poll.

thehill.com

As I said bullshit and bogus "polls". You can weight a poll to say pretty much anything you like by simply asking questions phrased correctly to a select group of people you know will give you the answer you wish.
The latest Quinnipiac poll was conducted Feb. 16–19 among 1,249 voters across the country and has a margin of error of 3.4 percentage points.
You honestly think the attitudes of 1249 voters accurately reflect the attitudes of 300+ MILLION Americans even though we know nothing about how the people were questioned or why they were considered random? I hope not because that sounds like a special kind of stupid to me. Besides the polls all proved that Trump would never be nominated and could never be elected President. Right?

3. Universal background checks are for all guns. Buying a gun from an individual is extremely easy. You give them the money, you get the gun. No background check. The seller doesn't even have to know your name. If you think guns are rarely used for criminal purposes, you're nuts.
If you think passing more laws-especially ineffective laws-would make it harder for criminals to get guns you're the one who's nuts.

 

[progressive hunter]

The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle. The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?

I dont dispute what you say. The weaponry should be exclusive for the military and never allowed for the public use. There is no valid reason for other than an ego builder and a power play by testosterone filled Rambos.
There are so many slaughtered by these that that itself should be prove they should be banned. But no, that 250 year old 2nd amendment says we have a right.
So let the mass murders continue. When it reaches your children or close family, get back to me.

more people are killed every single year by knives, by clubs, and by bare hands than by all rifle types let alone just the AR-15 rifle.....

More people die each year falling off ladders than are killed by mass public shooters in general and by mass public shooters with rifles...

What are you talking about?

The AR-15 is not a military weapon....do you understand that?

There is only one mass public shooting where the rifle had an advantage in the shooting, and that was Las Vegas, where the range was over 200 yards......but he was also firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, from a concealed and fortified position.......with his initial shooting masked by the concert.



And if the crowed wasn't trapped in that concert arena, he wouldn't have been able to kill as many since they would have run away or found cover.....since shooting at moving targets at hundreds of yards is almost impossible for all but expertly trained shooters...



At the range of every other mass public shooting a rifle has no advantage over pistols or shotguns.......



again.....at the range of a mass public shooting the AR-15 is no better than a pump action shotgun....as are 2 handguns......you idiot...



Boulder....used an AR-15 with magazines that held more than 10 bullets.. 10 killed.....



Virginia Tech...2 pistols, one with 10 round magazine..... 32 killed.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 2 pistols?



Boulder...10 killed with an AR-15 rifle and regular magazines ( holding more than 10 bullets)



Luby's Cafe..... 2 pistols....24 killed.



Do you see that the 2 pistols killed more than the AR-15?



Do you know what the difference was between these attacks?



The cops immediately responded and shot at the attacker in boulder, causing him to stop shooting unarmed victims, and then he shot himself....



Virginia Tech and Luby's Cafe, the police didn't get there, and at Luby's Cafe, the one woman who could have shot and killed the attacker had to leave her gun in her car because of stupid gun free zone laws....



Boulder AR-15 with magazines that hold more than 10 bullets...you know, regular magazines..... 10 killed...



Kerch, Russia, Polytechnic school shooting.... 5 shot, pump action shotgun...which means it had 5 shells which is 5 less than 10........20 killed 70 wounded.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 5 shot, pump action shotgun?



The difference? The Russian police station was 100 yards away from the school...and it still took them 10 minutes to get to the school...and he managed to kill 20 people with a 5 shot, pump action shotgun....10 more than the Boulder shooter with a rifle and a regular sized magazine...





So again.......in a mass public shooting the number of bullets in the gun magazine don't mean anything......the gun doesn't make the difference....



What makes the difference?



1) if the target is a gun free zone, more people get killed.



2) if someone starts shooting at the attacker, they commit suicide, or surrender, or runaway....



That is what you don't understand and don't care to understand since you simply have a mental issue when it comes to the AR-15 rifle.

That rifle had no special advantage in a mass public shooting.

We're going to have to face one fact the AR 15 may not be used by the military but it is a weapon of war that's what makes it constitutionally protected according to U.S. v. Miller 1939

So you admit it is a weapon of war. Was that so hard?

we've been telling you that for days,,

OK. Then show the post where that was clearly stated, other than when bigreb did.

just check my comments and then show some that proved it wrong,,

or you could prove it wrong,,

You made a statement, "We've been telling you that for days" ( that an AR15 is a weapon of war) , and you want me to find your remark that says it is not? You know that's nuts, right?

not as nuts as what you asked of me,,

You said you've been telling me for days that an AR is a weapon of war, and I asked for one example. That's not nuts.

are you saying I havnt told you that at least a dozen times on this thread??

Perhaps you have, and I didn't see it. Where did you specifically say an AR15 is a weapon of war?

so you didnt see the at least a dozen times I said that,,,

kinda makes you an idiot,,

If you say so, but why don't you just give the post number where you said the AR15 is a weapon of war? That would really put me in my place, wouldn't it?

or I could just repeat it for you,,all guns rocks and anything at hand are weapons of war,,,

 

[BULLDOG]

The only important definition is the legal one. The President doesn't make law. The ATF doesn't make law. The Constitution is very specific about how laws are passed and then they still can be overturned by the supreme court if they are not Constitutional.

.

Still the only reason I would be concerned about the ATF's definition,
Is that I am fairly certain they will be consulted by lawmakers should the question arise,
And they will be responsible for enforcing whatever law is created should the definition be required.

That's not saying it should be one way or the other,
just the ability to understand what will probably happen.

I am also not prepared to pretend that the Federal Government won't try, and hasn't already been successful ...
In regards to infringing upon our Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

That's because the term "universal background check" is incredibly broad and vague. Most likely support plummets when you drill down on what that means in terms of policy. Much like abortion, universal healthcare, anti-racism, etc...

What is so complicated? You sell a gun, you do a background check, just like dealers do now. Of course, you would have to go to a dealer to do it, and it might cost 3 or 4 dollars. Do you prefer felons buying guns without even having to tell the seller their name, or even caring if the purchaser can legally have a gun?

what makes you think thats going to stop a felon from getting a gun??

It won't stop all of them any more than wearing a seat belt stops all car deaths. You can't get 100% success from any program.

The problem is crime; not guns and always has been. You want to stop crime? Everybody wants to stop crime (except criminals and the hopelessly insane) more gun laws are not the answer because:
You can't disinvent technology. Guns, and the knowledge to make them exist, are plentiful and here to stay. As far as crime is concerned that is actually a good thing because it can help even the odds between vulnerable potential victims and attackers. People never had much problem murdering each other before guns were invented and if every one of them disappeared it is doubtful that it would have much effect on murder rates. So you're stabbed to death or blown up instead of shot; is that somehow an improvement?
We had an "assault weapon ban" for ten years that had absolutely no effect except to inflate gun prices and increase sales. That ban was implemented as a trial. It received support from some gun owners because it was to settle the question of whether more restrictive gun laws would improve the situation or not. It didn't and so the question was answered. Unfortunately that hasn't stopped some of the sheep from continuing to bleet about the already settled issue. There are already laws intended stop everything the gun grabbers claim to want to stop and they can present no reasonable rationale to believe that new repressive laws will work any better. I have heard that the definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. You don't curb crime by creating new criminals which is exactly the risk being run. Maybe it's past time to address the actual issues instead of continuing our wheels in the same rut and creating damage instead of progress.

Yes, crime is the problem. Crime caused by criminals with guns is a really big part of that. 90% of Americans, including 75% of NRA members say your oppressive law claim is bullshit. Why are you so fanatic about keeping an easy source of guns available to felons?

Crime caused by criminals with guns is a really big part of that.
True but it is also true that the crimes they are committing are already illegal (against current law) and nobody has yet propose a law that criminals cannot or will not break just as easily as the ones currently in place. No improvement.

90% of Americans, including 75% of NRA members say your oppressive law claim is bullshit.
No, I say that your statement is bullshit. Care to provide a link or other supporting evidence?

Why are you so fanatic about keeping an easy source of guns available to felons?
If they are so easy to get and oh so deadly why are they rarely used for criminal purposes?
From this side of the question it appears that you and your associates are the criminal friendly crowd. Why else work so hard to disarm potential victims if not to make things easier and safer for the criminals?

1. Crimes are already against the law. That's why they are called crimes. The use of a gun in those crimes puts them in a separate category. I'm still not clear on why you don't want to make it harder for known criminals to get guns.

2. You are correct. 68% of NRA members, not 75% as stated and 78% of gun owners not members of the NRA support requiring background checks for all firearm purchases.

Poll: Most NRA members support comprehensive background checks

Most National Rifle Association (NRA) members support comprehensive background checks for those purchasing a firearm, according to a new poll.

thehill.com

3. Universal background checks are for all guns. Buying a gun from an individual is extremely easy. You give them the money, you get the gun. No background check. The seller doesn't even have to know your name. If you think guns are rarely used for criminal purposes, you're nuts.

1. Crimes are already against the law. That's why they are called crimes. The use of a gun in those crimes puts them in a separate category. I'm still not clear on why you don't want to make it harder for known criminals to get guns.
I'm all for making it harder for criminals to get guns. Come up with a Constitutional new law for doing law for doing that and I'll support it. But what I keep saying and you keep ignoring is that I don't believe that that is realistically possible. And history supports that belief. Ever since 1968 we have been burdened with a host of restrictions on guns and not a single one has been shown to make it harder for criminals to get guns. Not one. And if some genius ever actually comes up with one, criminals can simply use other weapons and murder rates remain the same. I'm still unclear as to why you seem so intent on making innocent victims more vulnerable.

2. You are correct. 68% of NRA members, not 75% as stated and 78% of gun owners not members of the NRA support requiring background checks for all firearm purchases.

Poll: Most NRA members support comprehensive background checks

Most National Rifle Association (NRA) members support comprehensive background checks for those purchasing a firearm, according to a new poll.

thehill.com

As I said bullshit and bogus "polls". You can weight a poll to say pretty much anything you like by simply asking questions phrased correctly to a select group of people you know will give you the answer you wish.
The latest Quinnipiac poll was conducted Feb. 16–19 among 1,249 voters across the country and has a margin of error of 3.4 percentage points.
You honestly think the attitudes of 1249 voters accurately reflect the attitudes of 300+ MILLION Americans even though we know nothing about how the people were questioned or why they were considered random? I hope not because that sounds like a special kind of stupid to me. Besides the polls all proved that Trump would never be nominated and could never be elected President. Right?

3. Universal background checks are for all guns. Buying a gun from an individual is extremely easy. You give them the money, you get the gun. No background check. The seller doesn't even have to know your name. If you think guns are rarely used for criminal purposes, you're nuts.
If you think passing more laws-especially ineffective laws-would make it harder for criminals to get guns you're the one who's nuts.

Removing an easy source for guns from crooks will make it harder for them to get one. It won't stop them from getting one some other place, but why do you want to give them more to choose from? It won't stop a single honest person from buying.

 

[BlackSand]

or I could just repeat it for you,,all guns rocks and anything at hand are weapons of war,,,

.

Infectious diseases ... Fire, burning crops 100 miles away ... Women and children ... Thirst ... Cruelty
All Weapons of War ...

Fuck it ... Just outlaw everything.
I'll be the law enforcement and y'all get to go to prison.
Your prison will be wherever I am not standing, sitting or laying down at the moment.

.​

 

[BULLDOG]

The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle. The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?

I dont dispute what you say. The weaponry should be exclusive for the military and never allowed for the public use. There is no valid reason for other than an ego builder and a power play by testosterone filled Rambos.
There are so many slaughtered by these that that itself should be prove they should be banned. But no, that 250 year old 2nd amendment says we have a right.
So let the mass murders continue. When it reaches your children or close family, get back to me.

more people are killed every single year by knives, by clubs, and by bare hands than by all rifle types let alone just the AR-15 rifle.....

More people die each year falling off ladders than are killed by mass public shooters in general and by mass public shooters with rifles...

What are you talking about?

The AR-15 is not a military weapon....do you understand that?

There is only one mass public shooting where the rifle had an advantage in the shooting, and that was Las Vegas, where the range was over 200 yards......but he was also firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, from a concealed and fortified position.......with his initial shooting masked by the concert.



And if the crowed wasn't trapped in that concert arena, he wouldn't have been able to kill as many since they would have run away or found cover.....since shooting at moving targets at hundreds of yards is almost impossible for all but expertly trained shooters...



At the range of every other mass public shooting a rifle has no advantage over pistols or shotguns.......



again.....at the range of a mass public shooting the AR-15 is no better than a pump action shotgun....as are 2 handguns......you idiot...



Boulder....used an AR-15 with magazines that held more than 10 bullets.. 10 killed.....



Virginia Tech...2 pistols, one with 10 round magazine..... 32 killed.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 2 pistols?



Boulder...10 killed with an AR-15 rifle and regular magazines ( holding more than 10 bullets)



Luby's Cafe..... 2 pistols....24 killed.



Do you see that the 2 pistols killed more than the AR-15?



Do you know what the difference was between these attacks?



The cops immediately responded and shot at the attacker in boulder, causing him to stop shooting unarmed victims, and then he shot himself....



Virginia Tech and Luby's Cafe, the police didn't get there, and at Luby's Cafe, the one woman who could have shot and killed the attacker had to leave her gun in her car because of stupid gun free zone laws....



Boulder AR-15 with magazines that hold more than 10 bullets...you know, regular magazines..... 10 killed...



Kerch, Russia, Polytechnic school shooting.... 5 shot, pump action shotgun...which means it had 5 shells which is 5 less than 10........20 killed 70 wounded.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 5 shot, pump action shotgun?



The difference? The Russian police station was 100 yards away from the school...and it still took them 10 minutes to get to the school...and he managed to kill 20 people with a 5 shot, pump action shotgun....10 more than the Boulder shooter with a rifle and a regular sized magazine...





So again.......in a mass public shooting the number of bullets in the gun magazine don't mean anything......the gun doesn't make the difference....



What makes the difference?



1) if the target is a gun free zone, more people get killed.



2) if someone starts shooting at the attacker, they commit suicide, or surrender, or runaway....



That is what you don't understand and don't care to understand since you simply have a mental issue when it comes to the AR-15 rifle.

That rifle had no special advantage in a mass public shooting.

We're going to have to face one fact the AR 15 may not be used by the military but it is a weapon of war that's what makes it constitutionally protected according to U.S. v. Miller 1939

So you admit it is a weapon of war. Was that so hard?

we've been telling you that for days,,

OK. Then show the post where that was clearly stated, other than when bigreb did.

just check my comments and then show some that proved it wrong,,

or you could prove it wrong,,

You made a statement, "We've been telling you that for days" ( that an AR15 is a weapon of war) , and you want me to find your remark that says it is not? You know that's nuts, right?

not as nuts as what you asked of me,,

You said you've been telling me for days that an AR is a weapon of war, and I asked for one example. That's not nuts.

are you saying I havnt told you that at least a dozen times on this thread??

Perhaps you have, and I didn't see it. Where did you specifically say an AR15 is a weapon of war?

so you didnt see the at least a dozen times I said that,,,

kinda makes you an idiot,,

If you say so, but why don't you just give the post number where you said the AR15 is a weapon of war? That would really put me in my place, wouldn't it?

or I could just repeat it for you,,all guns rocks and anything at hand are weapons of war,,,

That's nice, but you already said that right after bigreb did . I'm wondering about all those times over the last several days that you claim to have said it. I can't find them.

 

[progressive hunter]

The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle. The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?

I dont dispute what you say. The weaponry should be exclusive for the military and never allowed for the public use. There is no valid reason for other than an ego builder and a power play by testosterone filled Rambos.
There are so many slaughtered by these that that itself should be prove they should be banned. But no, that 250 year old 2nd amendment says we have a right.
So let the mass murders continue. When it reaches your children or close family, get back to me.

more people are killed every single year by knives, by clubs, and by bare hands than by all rifle types let alone just the AR-15 rifle.....

More people die each year falling off ladders than are killed by mass public shooters in general and by mass public shooters with rifles...

What are you talking about?

The AR-15 is not a military weapon....do you understand that?

There is only one mass public shooting where the rifle had an advantage in the shooting, and that was Las Vegas, where the range was over 200 yards......but he was also firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, from a concealed and fortified position.......with his initial shooting masked by the concert.



And if the crowed wasn't trapped in that concert arena, he wouldn't have been able to kill as many since they would have run away or found cover.....since shooting at moving targets at hundreds of yards is almost impossible for all but expertly trained shooters...



At the range of every other mass public shooting a rifle has no advantage over pistols or shotguns.......



again.....at the range of a mass public shooting the AR-15 is no better than a pump action shotgun....as are 2 handguns......you idiot...



Boulder....used an AR-15 with magazines that held more than 10 bullets.. 10 killed.....



Virginia Tech...2 pistols, one with 10 round magazine..... 32 killed.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 2 pistols?



Boulder...10 killed with an AR-15 rifle and regular magazines ( holding more than 10 bullets)



Luby's Cafe..... 2 pistols....24 killed.



Do you see that the 2 pistols killed more than the AR-15?



Do you know what the difference was between these attacks?



The cops immediately responded and shot at the attacker in boulder, causing him to stop shooting unarmed victims, and then he shot himself....



Virginia Tech and Luby's Cafe, the police didn't get there, and at Luby's Cafe, the one woman who could have shot and killed the attacker had to leave her gun in her car because of stupid gun free zone laws....



Boulder AR-15 with magazines that hold more than 10 bullets...you know, regular magazines..... 10 killed...



Kerch, Russia, Polytechnic school shooting.... 5 shot, pump action shotgun...which means it had 5 shells which is 5 less than 10........20 killed 70 wounded.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 5 shot, pump action shotgun?



The difference? The Russian police station was 100 yards away from the school...and it still took them 10 minutes to get to the school...and he managed to kill 20 people with a 5 shot, pump action shotgun....10 more than the Boulder shooter with a rifle and a regular sized magazine...





So again.......in a mass public shooting the number of bullets in the gun magazine don't mean anything......the gun doesn't make the difference....



What makes the difference?



1) if the target is a gun free zone, more people get killed.



2) if someone starts shooting at the attacker, they commit suicide, or surrender, or runaway....



That is what you don't understand and don't care to understand since you simply have a mental issue when it comes to the AR-15 rifle.

That rifle had no special advantage in a mass public shooting.

We're going to have to face one fact the AR 15 may not be used by the military but it is a weapon of war that's what makes it constitutionally protected according to U.S. v. Miller 1939

So you admit it is a weapon of war. Was that so hard?

we've been telling you that for days,,

OK. Then show the post where that was clearly stated, other than when bigreb did.

just check my comments and then show some that proved it wrong,,

or you could prove it wrong,,

You made a statement, "We've been telling you that for days" ( that an AR15 is a weapon of war) , and you want me to find your remark that says it is not? You know that's nuts, right?

not as nuts as what you asked of me,,

You said you've been telling me for days that an AR is a weapon of war, and I asked for one example. That's not nuts.

are you saying I havnt told you that at least a dozen times on this thread??

Perhaps you have, and I didn't see it. Where did you specifically say an AR15 is a weapon of war?

so you didnt see the at least a dozen times I said that,,,

kinda makes you an idiot,,

If you say so, but why don't you just give the post number where you said the AR15 is a weapon of war? That would really put me in my place, wouldn't it?

or I could just repeat it for you,,all guns rocks and anything at hand are weapons of war,,,

That's nice, but you already said that right after bigreb did . I'm wondering about all those times over the last several days that you claim to have said it. I can't find them.

well you are a fucking idiot,,

 

[BlackSand]

Removing an easy source for guns from crooks will make it harder for them to get one. It won't stop them from getting one some other place, but why do you want to give them more to choose from? It won't stop a single honest person from buying.

.

There's goes the con-job.
It doesn't remove the source ... It changes the point or method of distribution.

.​

 

[progressive hunter]

There are always people who live in their own little world, but if disagree with our military's definition, you're pretty much an idiot.

who cares?? the 2nd was meant for military grade weapons,,

heres one dumbass,,

 

[progressive hunter]

This GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call in a veterinarian and have it put down.

It's an honest question. All I want is an honest answer.

Lots of people doubt its an assault rifle so the entire thread is pointless.

There are always people who live in their own little world, but if disagree with our military's definition, you're pretty much an idiot.

The military definition of a weapon is irrelevant. The military did not write the 2nd amendment nor do they enforce it.

Tard

I wasn't aware that the 2nd defined assault rifle.

it covers all weapons,,

heres another dumbass,,

 

[progressive hunter]

It's amusing to see how hard you are trying. No, I don't call my bathroom the Latrine or the Head, but I am aware that those are accepted terms that generally share the same definition. If someone does use those terms, I know what they are talking about. Does this have anything to do with the absurd claim that the term Assault Rifle is undefined?

.

You must be an idiot then, because it wasn't that hard to start with.
You are also the one saying that "we can all agree" what you want to call something is what it is, because the military calls it that.

But what we are talking about isn't an assault weapon as it is defined under current law.
I just like watching you crawfish all over the place acting like you might know what the fuck you are talking about.

You can call it whatever you want, but no one should be compelled to agree with your ass.

.​

The M4 most certainly is an assault rifle. It was unfortunate that I used the wrong term in the title. That is a mistake that I acknowledged early in the conversation. (somewhere around #40 or #41) I should have used assault rifle, but as I noted in the acknowledgment I didn't know how to edit the title at that point.

According to the Defense Intelligence Agency, “assault rifles” are “short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between a submachine gun and rifle cartridges.” All assault rifles are capable of automatic fire.

You are certainly free to use your own definitions if you would like, but your definition might not be as widely accepted as the military Defense Intelligence Agency definitions. You can call a squirrel a fluffy tail tree rat if you want to. I don't care.

it doesnt matter cause that type of weapon is covered by the 2nd A,,

heres another dumbass,,

would you like me to go on??

 

[BULLDOG]

or I could just repeat it for you,,all guns rocks and anything at hand are weapons of war,,,

.

Infectious diseases ... Fire, burning crops 100 miles away ... Women and children ... Thirst ... Cruelty
All Weapons of War ...

Fuck it ... Just outlaw everything.
I'll be the law enforcement and y'all get to go to prison.
Your prison will be wherever I am not standing, sitting or laying down at the moment.

.​

Damn. You made a funny, and I laughed. All at once it looks like you turned into some sort of estrogen starved banshee. Mood swings getting you down?

 

[BULLDOG]

The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle. The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?

I dont dispute what you say. The weaponry should be exclusive for the military and never allowed for the public use. There is no valid reason for other than an ego builder and a power play by testosterone filled Rambos.
There are so many slaughtered by these that that itself should be prove they should be banned. But no, that 250 year old 2nd amendment says we have a right.
So let the mass murders continue. When it reaches your children or close family, get back to me.

more people are killed every single year by knives, by clubs, and by bare hands than by all rifle types let alone just the AR-15 rifle.....

More people die each year falling off ladders than are killed by mass public shooters in general and by mass public shooters with rifles...

What are you talking about?

The AR-15 is not a military weapon....do you understand that?

There is only one mass public shooting where the rifle had an advantage in the shooting, and that was Las Vegas, where the range was over 200 yards......but he was also firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, from a concealed and fortified position.......with his initial shooting masked by the concert.



And if the crowed wasn't trapped in that concert arena, he wouldn't have been able to kill as many since they would have run away or found cover.....since shooting at moving targets at hundreds of yards is almost impossible for all but expertly trained shooters...



At the range of every other mass public shooting a rifle has no advantage over pistols or shotguns.......



again.....at the range of a mass public shooting the AR-15 is no better than a pump action shotgun....as are 2 handguns......you idiot...



Boulder....used an AR-15 with magazines that held more than 10 bullets.. 10 killed.....



Virginia Tech...2 pistols, one with 10 round magazine..... 32 killed.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 2 pistols?



Boulder...10 killed with an AR-15 rifle and regular magazines ( holding more than 10 bullets)



Luby's Cafe..... 2 pistols....24 killed.



Do you see that the 2 pistols killed more than the AR-15?



Do you know what the difference was between these attacks?



The cops immediately responded and shot at the attacker in boulder, causing him to stop shooting unarmed victims, and then he shot himself....



Virginia Tech and Luby's Cafe, the police didn't get there, and at Luby's Cafe, the one woman who could have shot and killed the attacker had to leave her gun in her car because of stupid gun free zone laws....



Boulder AR-15 with magazines that hold more than 10 bullets...you know, regular magazines..... 10 killed...



Kerch, Russia, Polytechnic school shooting.... 5 shot, pump action shotgun...which means it had 5 shells which is 5 less than 10........20 killed 70 wounded.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 5 shot, pump action shotgun?



The difference? The Russian police station was 100 yards away from the school...and it still took them 10 minutes to get to the school...and he managed to kill 20 people with a 5 shot, pump action shotgun....10 more than the Boulder shooter with a rifle and a regular sized magazine...





So again.......in a mass public shooting the number of bullets in the gun magazine don't mean anything......the gun doesn't make the difference....



What makes the difference?



1) if the target is a gun free zone, more people get killed.



2) if someone starts shooting at the attacker, they commit suicide, or surrender, or runaway....



That is what you don't understand and don't care to understand since you simply have a mental issue when it comes to the AR-15 rifle.

That rifle had no special advantage in a mass public shooting.

We're going to have to face one fact the AR 15 may not be used by the military but it is a weapon of war that's what makes it constitutionally protected according to U.S. v. Miller 1939

So you admit it is a weapon of war. Was that so hard?

we've been telling you that for days,,

OK. Then show the post where that was clearly stated, other than when bigreb did.

just check my comments and then show some that proved it wrong,,

or you could prove it wrong,,

You made a statement, "We've been telling you that for days" ( that an AR15 is a weapon of war) , and you want me to find your remark that says it is not? You know that's nuts, right?

not as nuts as what you asked of me,,

You said you've been telling me for days that an AR is a weapon of war, and I asked for one example. That's not nuts.

are you saying I havnt told you that at least a dozen times on this thread??

Perhaps you have, and I didn't see it. Where did you specifically say an AR15 is a weapon of war?

so you didnt see the at least a dozen times I said that,,,

kinda makes you an idiot,,

If you say so, but why don't you just give the post number where you said the AR15 is a weapon of war? That would really put me in my place, wouldn't it?

or I could just repeat it for you,,all guns rocks and anything at hand are weapons of war,,,

That's nice, but you already said that right after bigreb did . I'm wondering about all those times over the last several days that you claim to have said it. I can't find them.

well you are a fucking idiot,,

I'm gonna disagree there, but if I was, I would be a fucking idiot that can't find what you claim to have said.

 

[BULLDOG]

Removing an easy source for guns from crooks will make it harder for them to get one. It won't stop them from getting one some other place, but why do you want to give them more to choose from? It won't stop a single honest person from buying.

.

There's goes the con-job.
It doesn't remove the source ... It changes the point or method of distribution.

.​

No con job. Those other sources are already there. If your boat is sinking, you stop up every hole you can, even if you can't get all of them.

 

[BlackSand]

Damn. You made a funny, and I laughed. All at once it looks like you turned into some sort of estrogen starved banshee. Mood swings getting you down?

.

Actually ... I am just about always funny in the real world.
I am talking about friends passing out laughing when we get going ... Like they cannot fucking breath.

Unfortunately USMB doesn't tend to bring out my lighter side.
It's not really mood swings, just that sometimes, y'all really suck ...

.​

 

[BULLDOG]

There are always people who live in their own little world, but if disagree with our military's definition, you're pretty much an idiot.

who cares?? the 2nd was meant for military grade weapons,,

heres one dumbass,,

So the only guns covered by the 2nd are military grade weapons? We both know you weren't saying the AR15 is a weapon of war.

 

[progressive hunter]

There are always people who live in their own little world, but if disagree with our military's definition, you're pretty much an idiot.

who cares?? the 2nd was meant for military grade weapons,,

heres one dumbass,,

So the only guns covered by the 2nd are military grade weapons? We both know you weren't saying the AR15 is a weapon of war.

not what I said dumbass,,

 

[BULLDOG]

This GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call in a veterinarian and have it put down.

It's an honest question. All I want is an honest answer.

Lots of people doubt its an assault rifle so the entire thread is pointless.

There are always people who live in their own little world, but if disagree with our military's definition, you're pretty much an idiot.

The military definition of a weapon is irrelevant. The military did not write the 2nd amendment nor do they enforce it.

Tard

I wasn't aware that the 2nd defined assault rifle.

it covers all weapons,,

heres another dumbass,,

Make up your mind. The 2nd didn't define what an assault rifle is. I would ask you to prove otherwise, but you're already grabbing at straws trying to find something that might sound like "an ar15 is a weapon of war"

 

[progressive hunter]

This GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call in a veterinarian and have it put down.

It's an honest question. All I want is an honest answer.

Lots of people doubt its an assault rifle so the entire thread is pointless.

There are always people who live in their own little world, but if disagree with our military's definition, you're pretty much an idiot.

The military definition of a weapon is irrelevant. The military did not write the 2nd amendment nor do they enforce it.

Tard

I wasn't aware that the 2nd defined assault rifle.

it covers all weapons,,

heres another dumbass,,

Make up your mind. The 2nd didn't define what an assault rifle is. I would ask you to prove otherwise, but you're already grabbing at straws trying to find something that might sound like "an ar15 is a weapon of war"

never said it did..